Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 25 April 27 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Steer (Freeride skier)

Jack Steer (Freeride skier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I have not been able to verify the claims nor, for example, trace a reference to the 'Red Bull Bansko'. In any case, junior events rarely count for notability. No reliable sources for the subject that I have been able to track down. At present, fails WP:V. BlueValour (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Owens (basketball coach)

Jack Owens (basketball coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to not satisfy WP:BIO. Borderline perhaps. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 22:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Emilius Fauquier

John Emilius Fauquier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fighting man in WWII. There were millions of them, and this one, like the overwhelming majority, is non-notable. In terms of his medals, we have to recognize that many, many other people received identical medals. And, contrary to what the article states, he was not one of the founders of Canadian aviation. Qworty (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per just about everything below. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 11:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, needs better sourcing. I'm ready to accept this on the basis of some of the links provided (e.g. "possibly Canada's greatest bomber pilot"), but we do need WP:V to be satisfied. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Ok. I've changed a good deal of text, including some that could be construed as plagiarizing a source. I've added some specific, inline citiations for claims made. The ordering has been slightly improved. I would still like anyone who can find a copy of "Oswald, Mary, They Led the Way, Wetaskiwin: Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame" to see what she has to say about this guy, as the only printed source I have is the one history of canadian pilots in WWII. In my eyes, this article meets the guidelines to be kept in wikipedia now. He's mentioned in another encyclopedia. He's listed by a historian as "the best bomber pilot from canada" and he's a member of the canadian air hall of fame (I don't know how strict their membership rules are, but they can't be that loose as there aren't too many people inducted and canada sent a non-trivial amount of people to war). It's good to go. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good references which establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I didn't see this before Protonk went to work on it, but at this point the subject's notability is clearly asserted (as "Canada's greatest bomber pilot"), and the refs I checked were rock-solid, so WP:V is satisfied. I have no doubt this was a good-faith nomination, but it no longer qualifies for deletion. Doc Tropics 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like Doc Tropics, I didn't see this article before the recent work. However the suggestion above that "many, many others" received the same medals is ludicrous. Three DSOs is highly unusual (his predecessor at 617 Squadron, Tait, is the only ever RAF recipient of four). While the article needs more work, notability is undeniable and the added references have made it of respectable, although not outstanding, quality. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot more research has gone into the article than the nomination. As Stephen points out, the assertion that 'many many' men won the DSO three times is absurd. Fauquier led 617 Squadron from 1944 which would be notable in itself. If Fauquier isn't notable then it's Wikipedia's rules which are at fault. Nick mallory (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a standard history says "considered... Canada's greatest bomber pilot" , then he's notable. Even the original version had "Canada’s_Aviation_Hall_of_Fame" , and that's a good case for notability. .


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. As many may know, I'm one for stretching the boundaries of WP:MUSIC, but I can't be persuaded that either of these record labels are "one of the more important independent labels" per WP:MUSIC. Indeed, some of the bands on those labels that do have articles look equally likely to fail the policy as well. Black Kite 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XLooking Forwardx

XLooking Forwardx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, just MySpace/PureVolume promo links. Stormie (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these two album articles of theres, both are unsourced and are basically tracklist + infobox + nothing else.

What This Means to Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Path We Tread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't see the need to remove those links; they're legitimate external links to have on a page about a band... Chubbles (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you there Chubbles - although I don't see any evidence whatsoever that this band is notable, nor that Facedown Records or Blood and Ink Records are notable (both those articles are promo pieces with absolutely zero sign of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:NOTE), if the consensus is that this is a notable band after all, then yes, their MySpace page should absolutely be linked from the article. Be nice if someone would actually take the time to provide evidence of notability, though, rather than just asserting it. --Stormie (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, readded the links, and also added a reference to the article ~EdGl (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC at this point, even if they are on a well-known label. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My contention was that it does, in fact, pass WP:MUSIC based on the label claims. Facedown's one of the most important labels in the genre (notwithstanding Stormie's doubts), and Blood and Ink (regardless of whether it has an article or not) satisfies the definition of "one of the more important independent labels" given in WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be flogging a dead horse here, but it would really make things a lot simpler if someone could provide some evidence of the importance of Facedown Records and Blood and Ink Records. If they're two of "the more important independent labels" why is the best sourcing we can come up with a link to the labels' homepages and couple of interviews from a fanzine and some guy's blog respectively? --Stormie (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Facedown's roster speaks for itself; the key rub in debates over the importance of record labels boils down to people who adhere strictly to WP:CORP, which I think is a poor straitjacket for the labels, and those who recognize that labels become well-known primarily through the acts they sign. Facedown artists are routinely reviewed in dozens of major press outlets. Chubbles (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant criterion in WP:MUSIC reads "...released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels..." which is hard to read as met if the article for Blood and Ink Records is itself tagged with notability concerns. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th Son

7th Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N other than MySpace pages. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Elephant (album).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ball and Biscuit

Ball and Biscuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a single, not notable. LukeTheSpook (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I would be bold and redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
next time i come across one, i'll just redirect, i agree, this process is kind of pointless for every single song. [lukethespook] | [t c r] 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're happy for this to be closed, it can be done so straight away, and then the article can be redirected. Lugnuts (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, with no prejudice to recreation if/when this album is produced, named, talked about....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus: Sophomore Album

AfDs for this article:
Miley Cyrus: Sophomore Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miley Cyrus: Sophomore Album)

It might be notable in the future, but right now it fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Anthony Rupert (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alduil

Alduil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-published work (on fictionpress.com); "The Aldi Wars" has zero Ghits. No assertion for notability; no reliable sources. nneonneo talk 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article was speedily deleted (G1).. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Elizabeth Dare

Rachel Elizabeth Dare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Utterly non-notable fictional character. Prod removed by MrLoneWolf (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disrobics

Disrobics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, and I'm not sure it even asserts notability as required by WP:CSD ViperSnake151 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demotariat

Demotariat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable protologism. Only Ghits are two blogs (one with no content) and the creator's Wikipedia userpage. nneonneo talk 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies)

AfDs for this article:
The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies) (2nd nomination) but relisting as content is not substantially identical. Still, delete per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL and comments in previous AFD. The band have not yet started recording the album and nothing else is known aside from the title. All the other statements presented in the article at present are unverifiable speculation and rumour-mongering. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, this individual is notable as the moderator of a national television show, as verified by the invalid fair use image on the page. Third party sources would be appreciated, but AfD is not cleanup. Skomorokh 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milka Canić

Milka Canić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whitout relevant sources. This person isn't relevant for encyclopedia. The same article on Serbian Wikipedia has been deleted. Pockey (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge all to List of minor Peanuts characters. I'm just redirecting now, please merge sourced content from the histories as required. Sandstein (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

555 95472

555 95472 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Overly detailed and unsourced fancruft on a character who only made a few apperances now and then in Peanuts. Nothing in this article is sourced, and there is a lot of original research ("parents could be 1 and 2" for instance). Only source is another wiki and another WP article.

Here are a few other Peanuts characters who don't seem to be notable enough for their own pages:

Eudora (Peanuts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Othmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
José Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poochie (Peanuts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roy (Peanuts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joe Shlabotnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thibault (Peanuts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I love Peanuts, but none of these characters seem to be notable enough -- except maybe for Miss Othmar and Joe Shlabotnik, they don't even deserve to be merged.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuuga

Fuuga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable fictional group from the manga/anime series GetBackers. Completely fails WP:FICT and already sufficiently covered in List of GetBackers characters. Failed PROD removed by anon IP with no reason given. Collectonian (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's bad that this article consists mostly of plot and is almost entirely unsourced, but it seems there are some real-world content sentences in there, e.g. "The original idea of creating the Fuuga was voiced by Saizou" and "Ayamine Rando has voiced his opinion, in one of the free talk slots in the manga, that Fuuga and VOLTS are two very similar groups". Maybe I'm mixing real people with fictional characters, but still, a few producer comments do not automatically justify a separate article. Those should be merged though, not deleted. – sgeureka t•c 08:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, a few producer comments do not "automatically" justify a separate article. To meet WP:FICT, the character and/or place must have significant coverage in third-party sources, not just a few producer comments. Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acrossish

Acrossish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus, and per BIO guideline. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Oliver

Dennis Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this is an attractive article, I can't find any reason why he passes WP:BIO. He obviously has a professional theatre resume but nothing that is particularly notable. The only assertion of possible notability I see is that he supposedly shared an ACE Award for a stage production of "Flamenco Twist". As near as I can tell this is an award for New York city stage theatre from the Association of Critics of Entertainment, not the probably better known CableACE Awards. In the picture in Oliver's article, the award is clearly readable as named to "Héctor Luis Rivera", the director, not to Oliver or the production. (BTW, Oliver was using the stage name of "Dennis Oliveras" in that particular production if anyone wants to look further.) A number of news search variations on his name came up with nothing. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] While there are quite a few footnotes on this article, none of them are substantial, often just acknowledging that Oliver was in a particular production or a calendar listing. All in all, to my eyes it just looks like sophisicated PR spin with emptiness behind it. Pigman☿ 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, very well done and should not be deleted. I totally agree with the admin tachter that restored it. I am sorry pigman, but no every actor can be famous as a Bruce Willis or Brad Pitt to be in Wikipedia. Less afortunate actors like Dennis still are having the right to be in Wikipedia if they show some acting records, and I think this guy has more than enough acting in several theatrical pieces, important roles and also as a director assistant. It should to stay!justice all the way (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)justice all the way[reply]

Comment: One guideline for including actors on WP is Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers. While this is not firm and there are exceptions, I still think it's a good general rule of thumb. Mr Oliver doesn't seem to come close to meeting this guideline. I'm not looking for Brad Pitt levels of fame, just something more than "he's a real person and he acts professionally." Pigman☿ 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the article is structured properly and a first glance seems ok, notability is not established. Notability is not complicated, the subject has not been covered in any detail by any reliables source that I can see (My Spanish is not great, but from what I have seen none of the articles provided give the subject more than a passing mention). The problem is that since there is so little independent coverage, the article takes a promotional tone as there is little objective information from which to write an article. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: My Spanish isn't very good (I have a bit of French which is helpful for Romance languages like Spanish and Italian, particularly in terms of vocabulary) but most of the supporting cites about Mr Oliver currently in the article just seem to be mentioning that he is one of the actors in various plays, not singling him out for special consideration. Pigman☿ 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the reasons already mentioned, obviously fails the notability criteria. Thiste (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article his notability is proven by articles The following is the text is the result of the translation from the Spanish language into the English language from the Spanish newspaper congratulating to Dennis Oliver for his excelent work as an actor and as a director assitant. This article is showing also his picture ( as most of the other articles linked to his article are having). Please read:

Congratulations to Dennis Oliveras He study acting with Alba Olmos and Gloria Zelaya in a Puerto Rican theater rolling under the direction of Hector Luis Rivera (TEB Theatre) took part in the drama "Amantina or the Story of a desamor." Then, with the same company in the farce "Flemish Twist". Finally "Who is crazy here," under the direction of Otto Montoya. Recently, this boy born in Yauco, Puerto Rico made assistant director Alicia Kaplan in the play "Love and Legacy of Blood" carried scene at the Teatro Natives Queens. Click in the link below to see that article with his picture.

http://dennisoliveraspr.googlepages.com/dennisoliverasdirectorassistant

It proves the notability of Dennis Oliver as an actor. His article should not be deleted. Ralicia (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Ralicia[reply]

  • Delete Seems a shame, but the sources are almost all self-publicity, the IMDB is empty... Perhaps as suggested by an editor on my talk page, it may survive on it.wp or sp.wp, and can come back fully fledged and meeting sourcing and notability requirements. Rich Farmbrough, 10:27 2 May 2008 (GMT).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the nominations by them selves are too little to ensure notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Tame

Jasmine Tame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable under pornographic actress criteria. She can not be considered a serious nominee for a major award despite FAME nomination. She was not a finalist and was one of 29 nominees in her category! [6]. XRent interview is not enough to establish notability under the general criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human-Thistlethwaite algorithm

Human-Thistlethwaite algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ryan Heise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just somebody's solution for the Rubik cube, which he's put onto Youtube. There is also a biographical article that goes with it and should also probably be deleted. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see anything about it, digging through rubiks cube solution pages. Some solutions are notable because they relate to optimization strategies or solve bigger problems. If this is just a reworking of an existing solution to be done manually, I'm not sure that is notable. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and other. Articles are supposed to understandable to everyone, not just experts. This may also fall under WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. I know this would mean that all rubix helpers fall under that. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 14:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't believe the refs. are reliable. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 14:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Moon (actor)

Robert Moon (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor and improvisation instructor. The article does not contain any reliable sources and I could not find any reliable source coverage. IMDB lists only one credit. BlueAzure (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Badale

Manoj Badale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources to be had. Google and Google News mention a Britain-based owner of a cricket franchise of the same name (who may or may not be notable), but for all I can tell that's not the same person. The award he's supposed to have won is considered for deletion, too. Was prodded, prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, article cites no sources, article has about as many red links as blue. Of lesser concern is that it also has a (discouraged) trivia section.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael French

Michael French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO on notability. The one reference given mentions this bishop very briefly [8], and I have found no other reliable references mentioning him. Gungadin 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lack of non-trivial independent sources. Trads, "continuing anglicans" and other dissenters from change in mainstream churches are not generally anywhere near as notable as their mainstream counterparts. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Though there is mention of sources in this discussion, none seem can be found. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Television Expert Group

International Television Expert Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization, I couldn't find any reliable source coverage of the organization. The creator of the article is a COI. BlueAzure (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Firefly

The Golden Firefly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film, a Google search shows no results relating to this film. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this person is an actor whose most notable role is in The Golden Firefly:

Darren Siah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cunard (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied as autobiography with no evidence of meeting inclusion criteria. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Streets

David Streets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable - self promotion Fallenfromthesky (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NOTE. Looks successful, but not notable. (No independent notability.)  Frank  |  talk  22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Garion96 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global education

Global education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Personal essay. BlueAzure (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Article will be moved to Kings Park Soccer Stadium per consensus. Darkspots (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chatsworth Stadium

Chatsworth Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The name has been confused with another stadium in the same city. This stadium, to my knowledge has no notability and all edits seem to source information from a website which has made the same mistake or uses information from wikipedia anyway, resulting in a circular reference. More details on the articles talk page. GetDownAdam (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —GetDownAdam (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand. Are you claiming that the stadium, as stated in the article, doesn't exist? As a general rule, stadiums this size are notable. There's no way we don't have reliable sources on a stadium of 35,000 people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It would help if someone could decide whether this article is supposed to be about Chatsworth Stadium (as indicated by the title) or Kings Park Soccer Stadium (as indicated in the first line). Once this is clarified I may be able to take a more definite position. If they are the same, that needs to be explicitly stated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite The latter has been demolished according to Moses Mabhida Stadium; these pages on Chatsworth and Kings Park appear to indicate that they are two separate stadiums. Rewrite it as a stub about Chatsworth. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification It appears to me that all of the information we have on the Chatsworth stadium is in fact information relating to the now demolished Kings Park Stadium. As a result, editing the Chatsworth page to reflect information we have on the Chatsworth Stadium would result in a blank page. Chatsworth Stadium definitely exists. I just have no idea how big it is and can't find a strong reference that itself doesn't reference wikipedias mistake. Kings Park Soccer Stadium was probably 35,000 people, not Chatsworth. In terms of rewriting it as a stub about Chatsworth, I don't feel that the stub would have ever been created if the confusion about which stadium it is didn't exist. The refernces used above by JeremyMcCracken use wiki as a source for text and are obviously in the same boat we are. ABSA Stadium is in fact also known as Kings Park RUGBY stadium. The picture they show is of the old Kings Park SOCCER stadium. This is the RUGBY stadium across the road which they are calling Chatsworth. Very obviously not by the signage on the roof reading ABSA. GetDownAdam (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change title to Kings Park Soccer (or Football) Stadium. If GetDownAdam is correct, then this article relates to the now demolished Kings Park Soccer (or Football) Stadium. The photos from this website is of the same stadium as this website (look at the curvature of the uncovered stands). I would say this should be separated from the Moses Mabhida Stadium because they are separate venues, even if they occupy the same ground. One was completely demolished to make room for the other (similar to the new and original Estadio da Luz, new and original Estadio Jose Alvalade, and new and original Wembley) . Looking at what links here, I see Durban Stars F.C. currently play at Chatsworth Stadium, which would not be this venue since it is demolished. Now it could be that page hasn't been updated to a new stadium or they could play at Chatsworth Stadium. I can't find a club website that indicates where they play. Patken4 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change name I'm cool with that plan. I just hope someone will know how to do that, cause I for one have no idea. Hopefully it won't be something I will have to worry about. ;-) GetDownAdam (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To move a page, simply click the Move tab at the top of the Chatsworth Stadium page (it's between history and watch). That will give you the option of where to move the page to. Simply type in Kings Park Soccer Stadium (I am using soccer since it seems that it was the sport is referred to as in RSA) and click the Move button. Patken4 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected as likely candidate for redirection. These pages had almost exactly the same content, so I feel that a redirect does no harm. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bura

Joseph Bura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplicate article to Chris Bura which would be more logical for Chris Joseph Bura Caomhin (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Murder of Betty Hudson

The Murder of Betty Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cold murder case. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted at article creator's request. (I was the article creator.) -- The Anome (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strathfieldsaye (estate)

Strathfieldsaye (estate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obviously Potentially a misinterpretation of Stratfield Saye (see also Stratfield Saye House). This article contains no (new) appropriate information so a merge seems unneccesary. I also can't see how this article title would warrant a redirect. Booglamay (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stratfield Saye, or put an entry for Stratfield Saye into the Strathfieldsaye disambiguation page: see [10], [11] and many other printed sources for mentions of this famous estate by this name. -- The Anome (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - redirect seems more appropriate than merge - but potentially redirect to Stratfield Saye rather than Stratfield Saye House, with an inclusion of former names (history?) in the former. I can't see any independant information between the articles so merging seems unnecessary. Booglamay (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now put an entry for Stratfield Saye into the Strathfieldsaye disambiguation page to handle this. Please review this, and if this acceptable, please delete this now-obsolete page. -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Dollar

Dixie Dollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

According to the article, an alternative to the American dollar, according to a little Google searching, a novelty dollar note with no real notability. Misleading (advert?) article about a non-notable subject. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sean Bell

The result was Boldly Moved (non-admin closure), Moved to Sean Bell Shooting Incident per WP:SNOW and WP:BOLD. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Sean Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I know that I risk being branded many things for suggesting deletion of this article, and I assure you that my heart goes out Sean Bell and his family, but this article clearly violates WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:NOT#NEWS, both of which state that an individual who is notable for only one event should not receive his/her own article. Screen stalker (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is not applicable in this case for obvious reasons. This person was killed under extraordinary and controversial circumstances. The article is as much about the phenomena of his death as it is about the person. Perhaps the article should be changed to "the Shooting of Sean Bell" or something to that effect.Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think the Sean Bell article is more representative of an event rather than just the person anymore which would be consistent with the policy cited above by the user recommending this deletion. If not, then I suggest putting this story under the larger scope of 'Police Brutality' (although I still believe this story is an exception and warrants its own page).70.121.199.151 (talk)Lokisyko

I could agree and support a rename of the event, however. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Queerbubbles. You make some interesting arguments. However, saying that this article is similar to other articles does not mean it should stay. For instance, a mouse is a mammal because it has hair (and for a number of other reasons). One could say "but that would make dogs, cats and elephants mammals as well." True, it would. They're mammals. In this case, I have seen nothing to indicate that Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage and Ousmane Zongo are not one-event biographies. If you were to nominate them for deletion, I would probably support your nomination.
Regarding the argument that the verdict was a separate event, this, too, is an interesting point. But I do not think that the trial that comes out of a shooting can be regarded as entirely separate from the shooting itself. They are so linked that they cannot be divorced. Moreover, Sean Bell did not participate in the trial, so any notability that he gained by it was due entirely to the shooting. Screen stalker (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that article you see that the article does not solely focus of Mr. Bell. It focuses on the shooting incident. Which is why I said that I support renaming the article. This was the argument in the previous AfD that failed. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not making a WP:OSE argument here. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sean Bell has received a lot of media attention lately. I would say that he is notable enough. At the very least, the article should be merged into list of cases of police brutality. --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Given the wealth of information available the article should be kept, albeit with a difference name. However, on the grounds given should we also remove Reginald Denny or Rodney King or Latasha Harlins? These people have cultural significance. To my knowledge the media has not given a name to the incident. If there is such a name in use, given that this article is more about an incident than about one person, it ought to have different name. An example of this would be Santa Line Slaying DAMurphy (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable series of events that center around this person with references to a particular pattern of similar events in the past - all are discussing race and power privilege, both societal issues. Not news anymore... Unfortunately. Clearly value to WP. Maksdo (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article is based on someone who is NOT NOTABLE! The majority of people want to keep this article because of the race issue involved! There are many other notable events that have happened in the world where there is no Wiki entry. He broke the law by threatening someone and the officers used reasonable force to control him. I will agree with others that if the article will be kept, it should be renamed to some other type of notable title. Sean Bell IS NOT and will never be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 April 2008
    • Comment: The same IP made more than one !vote for strong delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OSE, you will see that the non-existence of other articles is not a valid argument for deleting an existing one. Many articles do not yet exist that should probably exist. Also, although this has no relevance regarding whether this article should be kept or not, the Wiki article makes no mention of Sean Bell "breaking the law by threatening someone" during the course of this incident, and I would venture to ask what viable source gave you such information? Also, 50+ gunshots is "reasonable force" for what unarmed man? Goliath? UNreasonable force is why many entries on this page agree that this incident should be classified under police brutality. JNycole (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Bell was shot and killed by police who were cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. Articles for Emily Wilscher and other victims of the Virginia Tech Massacre were deleted due to a consensus that they were not notable. If those shooting victims are not notable - people killed in a criminal action by a deranged gunman in an episode that stirred far more national media attention that the Bell case in which one person was killed and the shooters cleared of criminal liability - then Sean Bell is not notable either. Someone will soon respond that a civil case is ongoing. There are thousands of civil cases filed against police officers every year that are frivolous and are dismissed or result in no damages and no finding of misconduct. Sean Bell and his death are not notable; if either of the two were to qualify as being notable it would be the shooting, not Sean Bell the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) — 4.224.111.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The article is not about the person, it is about the incident. Need I direct you to Rodney King? Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about an incident then it should have a title that reflects that, instead of being titled with a person's name, and dwelling on that person instead of on the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I said that I support renaming... and if you checked the older AfD, that was discussed as well. If you support renaming, you should not endorse deletion, but rather renaming and redirecting. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename This isn't the place to discuss feelings about whether or not the shooting was a criminal act or not. It is clearly notable and continues to be notable. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable due to incident, criminal investigation and trial, possible federal trial, and pending civil litigation. Additional notability from Sharpton's involvement throughout. Flatscan (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Keep The incident is definitely notable, but the name should change since the article is about the incident, more than the person. —Chris! ct 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I agree that the incident is important. I also agree that Sean Bell is notable for the shooting. I just don't think he's notable for anything else. It seems that most people (including those in support of keeping the article) agree that it should be named after the shooting, not Sean Bell. I like a Natalie's suggestion of "2006 NYPD Shooting," though it could stand to be more detailed. Ideas? Screen stalker (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that this article should be kept. It is significant and noteworthy. However, any bias should be avoided and only facts should be discussed. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree to Keep this article. It is an important event in NYPD history where a very respected source of information tells the truth about what happened in a widely talked about issue. Without any biases Wikipedia tells the story how a few brave police officers did their job and had to fight public figures, who's only existance is to keep racism alive, to show that they were in the right. It is important that these facts are up on this extremely reliable source so that this incodent does not become a Rodney King incodent where the facts are disputable because the lack of relaible sources on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.bensimon (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) — Adam.bensimon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's certainly a valid opinion and if you can find a NPOV way to show that your opinion aligns with reliable, verifiable sources, then feel free to add that to the article. However, as a matter of debate, I would contest your recollection of events and suggest that it might not accord perfectly with the facts. Also, its "incident", not "incodent". Protonk (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Sean Bell shooting incident, or something of that nature, that would give a larger overview of the event, the background of the policemen, trial, demonstrations, etc.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename. Not really sure what comment this needs; it's hard to believe that a nomination to actually delete the article was made in good faith. --Delirium (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, rename At least 10 major news outlets decided this was a noteworthy event. The event is notable, but this article should be renamed to Dudeman5685's suggestion. APK yada yada 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, rename My main objection to deleting this article is that it serves a useful purpose. That might seem a naive objection, but in fact, it speaks to the fundamental reason for ALL the articles in Wikipedia: to provide useful information. Guidelines about the importance of subjects are helpful, but those who appeal purely to the "policies" as a rationale for deleting this article should consider that the guidelines are not transcendent divine laws, but only best attempts to be helpful. The fact is that I was glad to find this article because I needed the information it contained. On the other hand, it is, as others have said, mainly about the shooting of Sean Bell and the subsequent trial, and not a biographical article in the ordinary sense, and it would be not only appropriate, but would improve the article's helpfulness if a word or two were to the title to clarify the subject. "Sean Bell shooting" would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Walker (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, rename I really don't understand why this is up for deletion at all. They are talking about shutting down NYC because of this death for crap's sake... isn't that in itself a teensy bit newsworthy?? Just change the name if you must and be done with this inane, disrespectful, waste of time vote on deletion. And, to those sockpuppets entering multiple delete votes, just what the HELL is YOUR agenda??? Cowicide (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, rename : LOL Right-Cowicide! On another note, I agree, "Sean Bell Shooting" should be the rename of this article. Valid is the argument that Sean Bell is not otherwise notable. Also, valid is the argument that this article is NOT biographical, but rather is regarding the incident, and therefore should not be deleted, but renamed. No other rename or suggestion of "putting this story under the larger scope of 'Police Brutality'" will do because people WILL search for this specific incident, as user Craig Walker (above) and I did, and they will be searching under the name "Sean Bell". JNycole (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Shooting of Sean Bell" or "Sean Bell shooting incident" ~ Eóin (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved, see LogProtonk (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, as non-notable.

Crescent studios

Crescent studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

They apparently specialize in posting stop-motion Lego movies on YouTube and Google Videos. I am having real trouble finding any evidence of notability or widespread popularity. So Awesome (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Also, Royaldarkwolf, who is the only editor to have contributed to this article (except for So Awesome, who nominated it for deletion, seems to be a single-purpose account intended to promote his/her company, because the only two edits he made were on Crescent studios. This, of course, explains the very positive view of the article w.r.t. crescent studios. Screen stalker (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you now look at the Crescent Studios Page we have edited it and made alterations to it based on your comments. If you find any more problems, please do not hesitate to contact me so I can change it as fast as possible.Royaldarkwolf (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at the article we never said it was famous, if you find any more problems, please let me know, and please get it off the deletion list!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaldarkwolf (talk • contribs)

Delete. Does not meet WP:NOTE.  Frank  |  talk  22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to British Rail Class 66. As it looks like most (all?) of the info is already there I just set up the redirects. Please check article's history and merge anything left out. - Nabla (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: deleted {{Class 66 subclasses}} as a CSD G6 (Housekeeping) - Nabla (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 66/0

AfDs for this article:
British Rail Class 66/0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

duplicating content from main article, main article has info in it. The individual sub-type doesn't assert notability, or else pretty much every British Rail loco ever built would have several articles on their sub-types. Imagine what it would be like in the case of the British Rail Class 47 BG7 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as this one:

British Rail Class 66/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Rail Class 66/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Rail Class 66/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Rail Class 66/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Rail Class 66/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Rail Class 66/9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machinism

Machinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism combined with speculation. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The notable neologism can be found in the Scientific American issue on robotics for a start and the article per se has nothing to do with speculation aldough it does contain speculation on its possible future existence. Even if the described being will never exist, I believe it should be possible to describe it. The name robot is not fitted for what it is, as it more generally describes machines with a program while a machinism is a living machine that follows its own evolution. Love010 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One use in SciAm does not make a neologism notable. There is no indication this word will become the widely accepted terminology for what is essentially already covered at cyborg. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A machinism is not a cyborg that consists partly out of organic matter. A machinism is a living machine while a cyborg is a cybernetic organism (i.e., an organism that has both artificial and natural systems). As there isn't yet a recognized word for it, I believe it would be best to keep the article intact untill a better word is found to describe what is being described by the word machinism. Love010 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If 'there isn't yet a recognized word for it', then that means it is a neologism. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research or a crystal ball. --neonwhite user page talk 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aldough it is currently a neologism, I believe it should be possible to describe the meaning of the word on Wikipedia. Love010 (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As i pointed out wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. --neonwhite user page talk 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The meaning of machinism differs from Artificial life (Alife) because the word is used to describe a living machine while Alife is a field of study and an associated art form which examine systems related to life that may result in to machinisms eventually. Love010 (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it has no sources then it isnt notable regardless of whether you believe it 'deserves' an article. --neonwhite user page talk 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Smith (footballer born September 1985)

AfDs for this article:
James Smith (footballer born September 1985) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated again as player has not played in a fully professional league, thus failing notability at WP:Bio#Athletes Jimbo[online] 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This article was deleted due to an expired PROD tag. I've restored the article after a user came to me and contested the deletion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but for completely different reason than the nominator states. This article is a mere directory listing with no encyclopedic content. There do not appear to be any easily found verifiable sources for such required content that I have found. Soccer is not my speciality, so perhaps others can find this information better than I can. For the record, the Fleet does appear to be a fully-professional team, so I think that the subject of this article would pass the notability guideline listed in the nomination as well as the more specific Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, as proposed by the Soccer Wikiproject members. [12]. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my delete recommendation, as the same user who nominated the AfD which was closed as unanimous keep just 2 months ago had apparently made a bad faith nomination here, because he has made a statement that he ought to know is false from the discussion at the first AfD. This should be a Speedy Close as Keep under the snowball clause. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion does provide that an "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed" may be deleted, I don't believe that we can conclude that this is actually the case until users familiar with the subject matter have attempted to find sources. John254 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but since then I have had a number of successful nominations for exactly the same reasons, thought I would re-nominate as this player clearly doesn't meet notability. --Jimbo[online] 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on closer inspection player fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason. --neonwhite user page talk 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. This editor is not required to duplicate content at a referenced project page when they cite it as support for their recommendation. As the previous AfD was unaniomous, it is easy to find the reasons that this editor is apparently citing for the keep recommendation. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. The result of previous afds have no bearing on this one at all. Decisions are not permanent because the notability of an article and it's content can change. In this case the first afd was poorly adminstrated and the closing did not reflect the debate as most of the points were invalid references to a personal essay that is not in any way an excepted guideline for notability. Any questions of notability should be based on the proper guidelines, in this case WP:ATHLETE. Hence the need for a second afd is obvious. See WP:NOTAGAIN for further details. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion --neonwhite user page talk 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Xe did not say "keep because of the outcome of the first AfD", xe said "Keep PER first AfD". This is a reasonable affirmation that this editor agrees with the arguments for keep that were made in the first AfD. Xe is by no means required to reiterate them here, xe can simply reference them the way that people often reference policies, guidelines, and essays. You are simply wrong, so please drop it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAGAIN, as i have already pointed out, is considered an arguement to avoid in an afd as is anything that does not eleborate the point. His argument was not helpful and I am merely helping an editor work on afd skills lest their points be forever ignored. Please remember to remain civil in this discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 03:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you very much, but I don't think I need your help here (afd skills? what the hell, guess some people are spending too much time on here). NOTAGAIN might have been applicable had the nominator provided additional reasons to support his position, but the article was renominated on exactly the same basis and I don't feel like wasting my time on copy/pasting others' comments. If you don't like my reasoning, that's fine. BanRay 13:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on your outlook. One could suggest, for instance, that "Article seems of little worth." references no policy grounds under which deletion can be considered as well as introducing unwarranted personal speculation, that telling you to change it is just "helping you improve your AfD skills," and that furthermore WP:NOTAGAIN is a personal essay with zero weight in terms of Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Would you feel that I was being helpful, or that I was patronizing you?  RGTraynor  14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that Arguements to avoid in afds is an essay but it actually holds considerable weight with regards to afd etiquette and has for some time. Nevertheless, WP:CCC is policy and simply pointing to a previous consensus with no further explainations is not an arguement that is going to be given much weight. --neonwhite user page talk 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is as may be, but there are a limited number of times you can wave WP:NOTAGAIN at the same user in the same debate, when "So what?" is a perfectly valid reaction. That a lot of people buy into that essay doesn't thereby transform it into self-evident Wikipedia policy, and there's a certain irony involved in claiming that to be a meaningful precedent in response to telling User:BanRay that the prior AfD is an invalid precedent.  RGTraynor  13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:BLP1E applies here. If there's an appropriate article for it, it would be fine to discuss the specific event and reaction to it rather than focusing on Hoare himself (per our policy on these kind of BLP cases, "cover the event, not the person.")--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iorworth Hoare

Iorworth Hoare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another lottery winner article with questionable encyclopedic value. Fails WP:BLP1E; only reason for being in the news was winning the lottery while on weekend furlough from prison. Article has serious BLP problems too (although these could theoretically be fixed - the bigger question is whether this is a notable subject for an article to begin with.) No broader assertion to notability. Delete KleenupKrew (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice. If this player will become notable in the future, I see no objection for recreation.

Joe Tabiri

Joe Tabiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player has yet to play in a fully-professional league, thus failing WP:Bio#Athletes Jimbo[online] 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the Isthmian League not a professional league? I know it's within the English football system, but I'm not familiar with that far down the systsem. crassic![talk] 15:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No it's a semi-pro league, plus it's regional rather than national so a player cannot be kept on that basis. --Jimbo[online] 15:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been on loan at Wingate & Finchley and may make his debut next week. It would make sense not to delete the article until after that game Cg29692 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being on loan at Wingate & Finchley doesn't make him notable. Keeping him on the fact that he might make his debut next week is crystal-ballery. --Jimbo[online] 16:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Crystal-ballery it may be but I only request that the article is kept for another 6 days, besides it has been mentioned on the Barnet website that Tabiri will play before the end of the season link Cg29692 (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No it doesn't it says he's been earmarked for a first-team outing, and thats not even from the manager --Jimbo[online] 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Generally "earmarked" does mean a first-team outing is likely, and Dennis Signy is unlikely to be making stuff up. Cg29692 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't guarantee anything does it, though? The article was written over a fortnight ago, he heasn't played yet, and there's now only one match of the season to go....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under A7 Woody (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skavossas

Skavossas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This group fails to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC. In fact there is no sourcing since 2005. It appears to be a local band only. JodyB talk 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation (or against restoring this article) if in the future he passes WP:ATHLETE as seems possible given comments below.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhael Jaimez-Ruiz

Mikhael Jaimez-Ruiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer fails notability at WP:Bio#Athletes having never played in a fully-pro league. Although his team are promoted to a fully-pro league next season, keeping him on this basis would be crystal-ballery Jimbo[online] 12:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any proof of that? --Jimbo[online] 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This website confirms he played for CFR Cluj, while this BBC article confirms he made one first-team appearance for Barnet. GiantSnowman 14:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the BBC link says one appearance, not what competition he played in. If it was one appearance in the Hertfordshire Senior Cup then he'd be nn. --Jimbo[online] 14:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commnent According to this site, he never played in the league for CFR Cluj: ([13]) Jogurney (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources which say he has played in a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidence raised below that player never represented CFR Cluj or Barnet. GiantSnowman 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don' trust Soccerbase for this player, as they have given him two seperate entries: here and here. GiantSnowman 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Surely that proves a point of his notability if soccerbase hasn't heard of him --Jimbo[online] 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would disagreee; Soccerbase can have its faults, e.g. calling Kyle Nix - who clearly passes notability - Karl. GiantSnowman 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that no other database has a record of him playing for the Bees in first-team competition either........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had a trial with Tottenham Hotspur link the link also says he played for CFR Cluj. In addition (I think) he is the only Venezuelan in the English leagues, does anyone else think this makes him notable? Cg29692 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure Tottenham have had many players through their doors on trial, certainly doesn't make them notable. As for him being the only Venezuelan in the English football pyramid, why does that make him available and is there any proof? --Jimbo[online] 18:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Agreed; being Venezuelan and nearly playing for Spurs does not make notability; playing for CFR Cluj and Barnet does. GiantSnowman 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that Jaimez-Ruiz ever appeared in a league match for either Cluj or Barnet? (I've yet to see any.) Jogurney (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So just to sum up so far, we've got no hard and fast evidence of matches played in a fully pro league for either Cluj or Barnet (and in fact it seems fairly clear he didn't, certainly in the case of Barnet), therefore the only potential notability claim is a currently unsourced statement that he played in the Intertoto Cup. Have I got all that correct.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment the Cluj team line-ups from the 2005 Intertoto Cup are here, and there's no sign of our boy...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No confirmation of actual participation in a fully pro league (vaguely worded statements like "he played for CFR Cluj" in news stories don't confirm that he actually made any league appearances, many sources say that Derek Acorah "played for Liverpool" but in fact he never made it beyond the youth teams/reserves), and RSSSF source confirms that he did not in fact play in the Intertoto Cup...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in any fully pro league or competition, evidence summed up below:

Keep is a player in a team recently promoted to the football league. If we delete now we will have to recreate when Aldershot kick off in League 2. Jamesmh2006 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we'd need to recreate it once he plays a match next season, as he still won't meet notability requirements till then. And that's assuming the club even keeps him on for next season, which isn't a given. Assuming the article does need to be recreated, it only takes about three mouse clicks from an admin to do so, so it's not a reason in itself to keep the article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

He is a profressional footballer at aldershot town fc: [[14]] [[15]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.69.246 (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4veb

4veb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism article Fallenfromthesky (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Conrad Shafer

Jacob Conrad Shafer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person from history seems to fail WP:BIO. The sources given seem either improperly specified, or unavailable to me; but from what is visible, I doubt that they contain substantial coverage about this particular person. While Google hit counts need to be taken with care here, zero hits on Google Books are not particularly promising, and Google web search only shows genealogy sites. It seems to me that someone is publishing their private genealogy here. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Orderinchaos 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITEC 808 - 811- Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

ITEC 808 - 811- Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a course calendar and program guide, which fall under WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOG -- Flyguy649 talk 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close; it's a redirect and the article being redirected to is up for AFD. The redir will be deleted if the article is. -- Flyguy649 talk 14:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudiya Kutir, Inc.

Gaudiya Kutir, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

redirect to non notable organization that does not exist anymore. Wikidās ॐ 12:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Das Babaji

Ananta Das Babaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Guru advertisement. Wikidās ॐ 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This person seems not to be notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee Edwards

David Lee Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Partial winner of a Powerball jackpot, neither encyclopedic nor notable. Delete KleenupKrew (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only reason this article exists in the first place is because it was created just to disparage the subject. If this was a record payout I think it would have some notability, otherwise, not particularly. WilliamH (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some notability in him having apparently gone broke though. WilliamH (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't go so far as to call it an attack page; basically there is nothing notable about him except winning the lottery and then going on a bender to end all benders. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per notability guidelines, specifically BIO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Weeks (author)

Kevin Weeks (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The claims to notability are disputed by some editors, and there has been some edit warring on the article to this end. I've set the article back to the better version before the recent editing on this topic and nominated for deletion to resolve this in a more sensible manner. The reasons are non-notable, wikispamicruftitisement (sp?). I place no opinion on this nomination. Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Regardless of the issues over editing, the author is notable. He has won a number of awards including the New York Book Festival award. The article is poorly written for sure, but that is no reason to delete. -JodyB talk 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There are thousands of book festivals around the country and even more around the world, and the New York Book Festival is completely non-notable, scoring only two WP:RS hits, [16], neither of which is actually about the festival. The other awards listed are even less notable--an "honorable mention" certificate? Come on. This is a vanity-press writer who paid notorious vanity press Xlibris for publication, then used that as an excuse to come here and write a vanity article about himself, violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI. The books themselves are completely non-notable according to WP:RS and WP:BK. Even the photo has been tagged as possible WP:COPYVIO. When the original article was quite rightly speedied, the autobiographical vandal came back and posted it again. When he reposted this self-advert, he slightly changed the article name, in the worst of faith, so that the original speedy wouldn't show up. (This is the original speedy [17]). Thus, this guy is an extremely aggressive wikispammer. Now the article is up for deletion again, through a more formal process, and it should be deleted and forever salted. Furthermore, the vandal who reposted the article should be indefinitely blocked for the inappropriate user name on the WP:Single-purpose account that bears his initials. He also violated WP:SPAM by seeding half-a-dozen other articles with wikilinks to the spam-bio and to his website. (All of those have since been removed through a lot of painstaking volunteer work.) In sum, this is a textbook example of a user and an article we don't need on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually agree with you about the original author and I tagged the image as a copyvio. I would just ask that the article and the author be separated from each other for purposes of this discussion. The New York Book Festival actually shows 14 hits when extended beyond one month. JodyB talk 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging by the user's edit history, I can only see evidence of adding wikilinks to two articles, rather than the dozens claimed above. That aside, he did violate WP:BIO and WP:COI, but as per JodyB, the issue isn't about the article's creator, but about the article. And there it hangs on whether or not the awards (particularly the New York Book Festival) are sufficient to establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would probably say that it isn't a publicity tool, based on what I've seen about the award online (for example, CNN mentions that the festival sold out with 10,000 tickets "in days"). however I don't know enough about the US festivals in order to make a call as to whether or not it is sufficient for notability. My feeling is borderline at best, and probably on the delete side of the border, as per GB, but I'm hoping that people here will know either way. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The festival CNN reported on has no connection to the festival that gave the "award" to Weeks. Here's a report on that one, which notes that admission is free, and provides a laundry list of winners and nominees whom I've never heard of, and I doubt are known at all in legitimate publishing circles. [18] If you google the address given for the sponsor, it turns out to be a mail drop -- one of those places where "Suite 864" is actually mailbox 864 (which is why you can't send items to them by messenger). Right now I suspect my initial comment was too kind, and that this "festival" simply scams money from would-be writers who have money left over after being scammed by a vanity press. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mentioned the CNN article as it was the only one to refer to ticket sales. That aside, I'm very grateful that you were able to clarify things, which is what I was hoping could be done. - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Dark Eyes

Spanish Dark Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Spanish+Dark+Eyes%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Гedʃtǁcɭ 11:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Veil

Remove the Veil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, just a MySpace page. Stormie (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being signed isn't a criteria for notablity, national tours require non trivial coverage in second party sources. --neonwhite user page talk 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ettore Musolino

Ettore Musolino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was tempted to speedy this as a violation of CSD G11 but had some doubts and instead brought the article here. I am not quite sure exactly what the notability of the individual in question is (his website is simply a word press template) however there does seem to be considerable results searching for his name in google but I did not find them particularly illuminating as to what they regarded. Considering the creator appears to be the erson in question it has also brung up questions to my mind. –– Lid(Talk) 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Burton

Jonathan Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete I do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. The minimal notability is strictly connected to the unusual aspects of the subject’s death. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is Time Magazine's opinion, not a statement of verifiable fact. And as someone who works in the aviation industry, I respectfully disagree.Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your opinion, which we're not allowed to voice per WP:NPOV (at least in terms of deciding on an article's viability). The fact this is Time's opinion is irrelevant as every published source expresses an opinion, and our job is to report these opinions; we just cannot report our own. That's what Third-Party sourcing is all about. And this ain't a blog we're talking about. This is Time Magazine. I'm not expressing an opinion on the article's AFD as yet. 23skidoo (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Repeating a journalist's opinion does not make the article notable. And if you read what I stated, I did not offer my opinion as the be-all/end-all. I simply stated that Time made a statement that, for professional reasons, I could not second. I nominated the article because it fell short of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS, not because of the sensationalist news coverage that followed this single event. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kleenup: all the Virginia Tech victims were covered by Time and other sources, but being noticed for having a side role in only one event, they were rightfully deleted. No reason that this guy is any different. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseUnusual, yes. Notable, no. Taking dramatic license with odd news stories does not equate with notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt Lake City police report. Pepso2 (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could use some cleanup, but article is adequately sourced for a stub. Needs categories. Time magazine's opinion isn't entirely unfounded (Ecoleetage's personal research aside). Is there another confirmed incident where a passenger was killed onboard an American domestic airliner by a mob? Except for BLP issues, which clearly don't apply here, this situation is very similar to Richard Reid (shoe bomber), which also refers to one incident, but is notable beyond question. Both these sad situations could have ended much worse, and then we'd be working on far more gruesome pagespace. The two dramatizations move this fellow's page past the bar for notability. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More categories and links have been added. Pepso2 (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Apologies, someone doesn't actually read the debates before sorting. Made a bit of a mess yet again. Hiding T 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cantor

Tim Cantor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tim Cantor seems to be a relatively successful professional artist, with his own gallery. The only significant award he has received that the article mentions, is a Bank of America award when he was 15. (This award is not documented with a useful reference in the article, but only by a citation to the bank's site, which does not mention Mr. Cantor.) The only reference provided for the information about Cantor is The Art of Tim Cantor, published by Ashby and Alfred publications, which, according both to the article and to the artist's website is owned by Tim Cantor. The article's primary author, User:ProfessorHarrison, is an employee of the gallery [19]. User:Nancy has clearly spent a good deal of effort in attempting to improve this article, but WP:N is still inadequate, in my opinion. I've tried to locate better information about Cantor and his work, but have not been successful. Tim Ross (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Ty 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Bartow

Rick Bartow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just one of the hundreds of thousands of minor painters with a work or two hanging in a few museums. Utterly non-notable. Qworty (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J Fox

Peter J Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Music and is a WP:AUTO and WP:COI violation. Also, its creator should be immediately blocked for inappropriate user name. Qworty (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User name is the same as/very similar to that of the article. That's justification for an indef block. Any admin reading this should do it. Qworty (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suite Styler

Suite Styler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

appears to be a hoax, also violates WP:CRYSTAL WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 09:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Yaku

Lawrence Yaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO in that he has never played professional soccer. Punkmorten (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katta Russeforening

Katta Russeforening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails attempt to find reliable, thrid-party sources about this. A search with both Google and Sesam fails to find any other articles than this page about the organization. The article on the Norwegian Wikipedia has been deleted or speedy deleted three times see, [21]. No organizations at individual schools involved with the arrangement of the russ celebrations can possibly be notable within the requirements of Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but cleanup. Sandstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASC CDL

ASC CDL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, seems a lot like original research Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and wikify The article needs a lot of work and is by a new contributor. But has the nominator done any research at all to see if this subject might be notable before nominating this for deletion? Obviously not. Observe the search results on Google News [22] and Google Web [23]. I strongly suggest that the nominator contact Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films for some expert input on this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tyra Bolling. Sandstein (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Tyra

Introducing Tyra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No information or sources here... really there is nothing here. Editor has a history of introducing inappropriate pages. SOme serious expansion will need to be done; otherwise should be deleted as non-notable. - eo (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Some improvement made in terms of sourcing, article still needs significant cleanup though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barsana Dham

Barsana Dham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable. OR and not referenced. ADVERTISEMENT. Wikidās ॐ 08:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a good bit of work has been put into this article, but the subject does not meet WP:NOT. Article is largely an essay and self-promotion.  Frank  |  talk  22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. 86.40.196.166 (talk) 20
32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article is verifiable, and although there are issues with the promotional tone, the overall coverage of the temple itself seems enough to satisfy notability. The founder himself may be more notable than the temple, but both seem to satisfy the notability criteria. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudiya Kutir

Gaudiya Kutir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non existing organization without any proof of notability. Wikidās ॐ 08:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fienberg

Anthony Fienberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

With 59Ghits, this just looks like more vain vanity in vain. Prod removed by author (most likely subject himself). JuJube (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meatarian

Meatarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a complete neologism, and the article is little more than a POV rant. There aren't any references which aren't a complete and utter joke. This should be gotten rid of quickly, IMO. JuJube (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect. Content remains in history for anyone who wants to do it. I have done the redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raps and Taps

Raps and Taps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A yearbook for St. Christopher's School. The author claims that it's a part of the community and won many awards and that makes it notable. I fail to see how a yearbook can be notable, really. At best, it should be merged with St. Christopher's School. Prod was, needless to say, removed by author. JuJube (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mugens

Mugens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable cosmetic company David Christophersen (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natib Qadish

Natib Qadish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I tried researching this topic to add reliable sources to the article and give it a good reworking. I am generally interested in religion and this topic seemed quite fascinating. However, I was unable to find any reference to a group of this description; neither could I find any reference to a group of this name. I searched both Questia and a local university library. While the topic is nifty and interesting, apparently the sources do not exist to support an article at this time (i.e. non-notable). Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't exist anywhere on Google Books/Scholar/News Archive. All that is out there is the external links in the article -- self-published websites, forums, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research Yahel Guhan 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe words do have meaning on their own, but together they constitute a concept that does appear quite original. Even if not true OR, it certainly is not notable. This area is an interest of mine, and I've never heard of it! To be on the safe side, I tried to look it up and confirmed Vassyana's findings.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst this page does need to be deleted, due to it's not following all the rules, having no reliable sources, would it not also be possible to mention it somewhere in the Canaanite religion article, and possibly include at least one of it's external links on that page, or in another article where it is mentionned?HS7 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I searched some local pagan shops, checked a few peoples' occult/neopagan book collections and shopped around online. I still could, sadly, not find any information about such a group (by description or name) except on the self-published sites. Vassyana (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some digging, and the best I've been able to come up with so far is Magickal Judaism: Connecting Pagan and Jewish Practice by Jennifer Hunter, which I gather discusses it (although not under that name), but I don't yet have a copy with which to confirm. Most of what I get is discussion of the original religion, rather than the neopagan version, and the Natib Qadish community seem to be drawing on those sources - which is pretty much standard practice for many of the neopagan groups. I wouldn't expect much academic discussion, if any, on this topic, simply because smaller neopagan groups don't tend to draw academic attention. And thus I doubt that notability can be established. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Academic mention isn't needed per se, or at least I do not believe so. If I could have found, (for example) at least a few Llewellyn and/or Weiser books about it, I would have instead revised the article per such sources. If you just include the mid-size occult, new age and neopagan publishers, they cover most variations of their subjects including smaller and specialist groups. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry, I probably worded that badly. I don't see academic sources as necessary, but they're what I can search, so I focused (and commented) on them. And they would be suffcient. :) Llewellyn or other publishers would also be sufficient, but I can't check them myself )my own collection is small and somewhat too select), so that has to be up to someone else - I'll see if I can follow your example, though, and check the local shops. But if you had no luck, I suspect I won't either, unfortunately. - Bilby (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't it just be deleted now, and if anyone ever finds some sources to reference it with, it can be recreated? However, with the group 'drawing on the original religion' as mentinned above, doesn't that make them the same religion, with a different name?HS7 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As much as some reconstructionists would beg to differ, neopagan reconstructions are decidedly distinct from the historical religions. Vassyana (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All religions change though, I don't think I've ever come across any religion that has gone a few thousand years without changing, but they are still considered to be the same religion in spite of that.HS7 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I gave it a shot, but agree with the nom - it is difficult to find anything reliable as a source (with teh exception that there may be something in one work). Given, as the article states, they are reasonably young (even for a neopagan group), this isn't surprising. I considered suggesting a merge, but the information wouldn't fit with Neo-paganism, and while I could potentially see a place for it in Judeo-Paganism, the article itself suggests otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After checking, I noticed that everything in this article was already in the other article, and as a result there's no need to merge. Wizardman 21:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Bowl winning head coaches

List of Super Bowl winning head coaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We already have List of Super Bowl head coaches Buc (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm assigning less weight to the earlier "delete" opinions, as they do not appear to have been able to take the subject's mention in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians into account. Sandstein (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Capyrin

Dmitri Capyrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete and possibly salt. Non notable, unsourced autiobiography created by the subject of the article. Was speedied yesterday per Wikipedia:CSD#A7 and was subsequently recreated with no substantial changes.

I'm also nominated the following article for the same reasons obviously. This was also speedied as well.

Dmitri Kapyrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)CyberGhostface (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It is likely because there was no assertion of notability. Reading the current article, there isn't a real assertion of notability. It doesn't say why he is notable as a composer. Whereas the external links are articles that do make a case for notability with statements about compositions being featured at music festivals, and placing second at a music competition in Turin. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources now in the article show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I do not know what shape this article was in when it was speedy deleted but I have to imagine that the deletion was done in haste because this subject matter is clearly notable per this - "Capyrin's music has been performed by numerous prominent ensembles and soloists, and has also been featured in a variety of concert and festival venues, including the Moscow Autumn (1999), the Paris Presences (1993), and the Zagreb Biennale (1993)" - and this - "One of the most prominent composers of the younger generation of Russians ... Kapyrin's works have featured at international festivals such as the Moscow Autumn, the Music Biennial Zagreb, Resources g3 (Paris) and the Almeida (London). In 1994 he won second prize in the ICONS competition in Turin ..." --Bardin (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any independent reliable sources that make the case for his notability in the article. Allmusic.com is a blog; Phonoarchiv.org, I have no idea what it is. Either way, those two sources, in my opinion, don't necessarily demonstrate notability. I have done a bit of checking (admittedly not too thoroughly) and I don't seem to find anything about him in any news sources. If there are some independent, reliable sources found, I'd definitely change my opinion on this. BWH76 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google searches for both Dmitri Capyrin and Dmitri Kapyrin (why this guy needs two seperate articles I'll never know) don't show that many pages either. I mean, information exists, but the fact that there was no article about him until the subject himself made an autiobiography (and it is one...he's writing about himself), when he's been in music for at least over a decade, says a lot to me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Music Guide is not a blog. The other source is the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. It's a bit odd stating that there's no independent, reliable sources or that there has been no articles about the subject when he's been featured in something as mainstream as Allmusic and something as respected as the Grove Dictionary. This isn't popular music from USA. It's contemporary classical music from Russia. --Bardin (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're (intentionally or not) not mentioning that the Capyrin article was deleted because of "Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance" not because it was a copyvio. The Kapyrin article was the one that was deleted for being a copyvio.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been following this one closely for a while, and while I realize that others have been working on it, I'm still not convinced of his notability. He might be notable, but the evidence dredged up so far is mighty thin. He won a scholarship thirteen years ago. He won second prize in a competition fourteen years ago. His music was performed in Zagreb and Paris fifteen years ago. Even in his home country, Russia, the last time his music was publicly performed, according to the evidence, was nine years ago. What we have here is a composer who once showed promise, but appears to have burnt out after achieving a few minor things in his youth. Unfortunately, what he achieved in his youth is not really notable--it's just marginal. Now, in his middle age, he comes to Wikipedia to write an article about himself that asserts his "notability" based on his past promise. When the article is speedied, he recreates it immediately. How does a major composer have the time to do that, and why is it so important to him? I don't like anything about this. It smells really bad. In the past decade since his musical career petered out, how's he been supporting himself? For all we know, he may be driving a truck in Moscow and playing with the Internet in a cafe at night. As I say, he might be notable, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet, and there are just too many holes in this one for me to vote anything but delete. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be confusing accomplishment with notability. But notability is such a poorly understood concept anyway. Instead of looking for "evidence of notability," focus on the more concrete (and mercifully simple) question of whether there are reliable sources about him that can be used to write an encyclopedia article. 152.3.247.41 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 152.3.247.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reluctant Delete: Grove's is a rock solid reliable source, but it's the only one, and we need multiple sources to keep. This "ICONS competition" referenced in the article has only seven Google hits, and the second to lead hit is this AfD discussion, which suggests it's spectacularly non-notable. Notability doesn't expire, but you need to gain it in the first place, and I don't see the proof of it here.  Ravenswing  15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grove's is sufficient. We do not need multiple sources if there is one authoritative one. Two substantial mentions in RSs are taken to prove notability regardless, though with so many exceptions from NOT that it's almost meaningless as a criterion. But nowhere does it say that one good source is not sufficient. An authoritative judgment that a composer is important is just what we need. DGG (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Whether his career peteeered out is not our concern--we're not here to judge the music, but the verifiable information from the sources. DGG (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I take it I was wrong in assuming autobiographies are frowned upon on Wikipedia?--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I'll keep that in mind if I ever make an article about myself in the future.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Grove is the reference when it comes to erudite music. If it's good enough for the Grove, it's good enough for us. I'm not sure why this is even still being discussed. — Gwalla | Talk 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Induced homomorphism

Induced homomorphism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD; tag removed by an uninvolved editor on the basis that it is a relevant mathematical subject. However, as written the article is purely a short explanation followed by an exercise for the reader - Wikipedia is not a textbook. The short explanation should instead be included in Homomorphism. Ros0709 (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Homomorphism not notable enough to have own article, per nom.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cleaned up the article and marked it as a stub. Homomorphism is the wrong target for a merge; group homomorphism would be better, but still is much less about topology than this article is. The place where this subject is actually discussed is Fundamental group#Functoriality. I'm not yet sure whether a separate article on this subject is worth keeping or not, but if not, I think the redirect should go to fundamental group. If it is kept, we should add a "main article" link to the Functoriality section and merge some of the material from there into this article; the fact that some other sections of fundamental group already have their own main article links suggests that it was already thought to be a good idea to split the Wikipedia material about fundamental groups into smaller articles, which lends support for keeping this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least make a disambiguation page. I agree with the first part of Eppstein's comment that homomorphism and group homomorphisms are the wrong merge targets, and that the obvious choice is a merge with the fundamental group article. I disagree with the second part: there can be many different kinds of induced homomorphism. In fact, any kind of functor (into the category of groups, rings, etc.) is going to give "induced homomorphisms". The article as it stands is a perversely narrow use of the word. At best, if this survives, it should be a disambiguation page indicating the various kinds of induced homomorphisms available. Redirection would serve no encyclopedically useful purpose. silly rabbit (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge with homomorphism". Look: There's an article titled House numbering. "House numbering is the system of giving a unique number to each building in a street or area[...]" etc. Now suppose it is decided that's not worth an article and it should be merged into something else. What to merge it into? Well, number, of course. Right? How about squad number? "In team sports, the squad number, shirt number, jersey number, sweater number, or uniform number is the number worn on a player's uniform." What to merge it into? Number, of course!! Not something about sports. What about letter bomb? If it needs to get redirected, don't redirect it to bomb; redirect it to letter. Or varsity letter? No, don't redirect to something about college sports; redirect it to letter.
This article is about algebraic topology. If it's not worth an article, it should redirect to a broader article on algebraic topology.
But I'm inclined to agree that it should either be made a disambiguation page or made into a discussion of the general concept with mention of various concrete examples including the one that the article is now about. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm not sure what that target should be though... maybe I shouldn't be even saying "merge" then. Closing admin: I actually don't know what I'm talking about here probably, but it just seems like a good candidate for a merge to something else. Sancho 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per silly rabbit above. induced homomorphisms happen everywhere and each instance can be easily treated in the relevant context. having an article on one particular instance is pointless. Mct mht (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Fundamental group. Merging to homomorphism is not appropriate, since "induced homomorphism" is primarily a topological notion while "homomorphism" refers to a general algebraic term. I do not see sufficient need for keeping a separate article about induced homomorphism. Nsk92 (talk)
Keep and expand per Mct_mht's comments below. Mct_mht and Silly Rabbit are quite right that the term "induced homomorphism" is used in many more situations than just for the maps between the fundamental groups, such as the maps between homotopy, homology and cohomology groups. So it does make sense to keep the article and expand it to include these additional uses. An alternative solution, to prevent problems with redirects, might be to first move the article to something like "Induced homomorphism (fundamental group)" and then merge that with Fundamental group. But keeping and expanding seems better to me. Nsk92 (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge with Fundamental group. if i understand correctly, merging includes making this a redirect to it. as silly rabbit pointed out above, there are all kinds of induced homomorphisms, in homology, in K-theory... the list goes on. redirect to a particular context is a bad idea. Mct mht (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was trying to come up with something more specific than Algebraic Topology, but perhaps that's the best we can do. Klausness (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These precisely indicate that we should not keep this article. Notice that all but two of the meanings are different in these different places and the two that are the same are not the same as the one discussed in induced homomorphism. There is no way to cover all these instances. If you search for example for induced topology, you will also find many hits. Do we want an article called induced topology? I hope not. What about induced order? Should we have an article fresh milk and an article spoiled milk? Oded (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, if and only if knowledgeable editors can identify an appropriate location. In the future, try just doing a merge/redirect yourself. Since this is a valid term that deserves at section in some other article, putting it up for deletion is obviously the wrong solution. And if there's no good place to merge/redirect to, then apparently the concept needs to stand on its own, so keep. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This content already has a section in another article: it's described better at Fundamental group#Functoriality than it is in the nominated article. The question is not how to find a better home for the content, it's whether this name is an appropriate one for the content. Although I suggested a merge above, I'm finding myself now more in agreement with the others who say that it's the wrong name (because so many other unrelated concepts could also be called an induced homomorphism) and therefore that the article in its present form should be deleted. If it is deleted, it's no big loss to the project, because as I said the same material is already covered elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's one name for lots of content, then make it a disambiguation page. In any case, this deletion discussion is completely moot. Whether the page is deleted or not, somebody should (and hopefully will) come back at a future time and do the sensible thing with this page—and I doubt very much that that's having nothing at the name at all. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is an induced homomorphism? All it is is a homomorphism which is induced. The homomorphism could be a group homomorphism, or a graph homomorphism or any number of other homomorphisms, and it can be induced in many different ways. Having an article by that name serves no useful purpose. It is reasonable that there would be an induce (mathematics) redirect to functor. The content of the present article already appears in all the right places. Oded (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    Don't you think it's possible that someone will actually look for an article named induced homomorphism? Shouldn't they get some kind of pointer in the right direction? -- SCZenz (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it is very likely that someone will search for induced homomorphism. But we cannot point them in the right direction, because we don't know what that direction is. If there is no page by that name, what happens? They get the list of pages where induced homomorphism appears. Isn't that practically the best that we can do? Right away they see that there are many different induced homomorphisms, and that they should figure out from the context what this means. Oded (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That supposes that a text search of Wikipedia is as good as a well-crafted disambiguation page. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In view of David Eppstein's revision, I change my mind. It is now better than nothing. Oded (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Include in mathematical jargon.--CSTAR (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's definitely better now.--CSTAR (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to David Eppstein for expanding the article. It still needs work, but I think in its current form the scope is both notable and easily addressed in an encyclopedia article. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JackSchmidt, OdedSchramm. Nice work David! I recommend a speedy close and keep. This AfD is far too convoluted, and my sense is that the consensus among the "experts" is to close as keep. Recent edits to the article have improved it dramatically. silly rabbit (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is no longer anything like the article I nominated for deletion. Many of the comments, including my own, no longer apply. We should not second-guess whether the contributors of those early comments still hold the same view, and simply speedily close this. It can always be renominated if there is strong feeling by anyone that the article should be deleted, but it appears to me there is a sufficient turn of opinion in favour of closing as keep anyhow. Ros0709 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Rothbardianism

Left-Rothbardianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be a notable topic or term. 38 Google hits, of which about 31 are Wikipedia or sites mirroring Wikipedia. Delete KleenupKrew (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, semi-academic WP:NEO with no Google Books or Google Scholar results. To the extent that there are reliable sources that identify a "left-wing Rothbardian perspective", that is something that merits perhaps a sentence or two in Murray Rothbard. At best, this is a fringe position held by a minority philosophy because the fringe feels the minority has joined the majority. Or something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A neologism is a neologism, and fails on that ground alone, quite aside of the lack of reliable sources.  RGTraynor  15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daat Research Corp

AfDs for this article:
Daat Research Corp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The result of the first AFD for this article was no consensus, mainly due to quite a few keep votes with the reasoning that the article was AFD two minutes after creation and that the author should be allowed a chance to expand it. After two weeks nothing has been done. I believe the article should be deleted because it is not notable. If you check the articles history you will see that I spent over two days researching the article and what information I was able to find was unable to expand the article more than a tiny degree. In my (in this case, well researched) opinion there is not enough information on the article available out there to expand the article to anything beyond stub status. -Icewedge (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Icewedge. --JulesN Talk 15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepGoogle Scholar links show that there is some impact in the CFD industry from this company and the engineers it employs. Google News shows some news interest, mostly in trade press. google Books shows references in published trade books. the article doesn't seem like spam. It's FINE at this size or slightly longer, not everything of note in Wikipedia needs to be 2-3 pages long with illustrations. Also, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. If the sources exist establishing the fundamental notability of this article, then it doesn't help to keep deleting it. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the results you linked two provide only trivial or incidental coverage, WP:RS requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail" to establish notability. There are many results from highbeam.com on the search you linked too but all of them are "(Briefly Noted)(Brief Article)". Also, when you link you should include quotation marks around you search terms, you are getting thousands of erroneous hits for the words "research" and "corp". -Icewedge (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the thousands of false positives show up in the first few pages? And I'm not suggesting that the entire list of articles found there somehow adds to the notability. I'm simply showing that coverage exists. Also, brief coverage in general is perfectly fine for establishing notability. If there isn't a single source that covers the subject in detail then notability can be established from a large number of tangential references in reliable sources. And I reiterate, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Presumably there exists someone out there with a good deal more experience on this subject that could improve this article, given the possible sources out there. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that OR would be required to expand the article: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"(WP:N). There is just no depth in information out there, this is the best article about the company that I could find, if there were several articles of this length that would be ok but it is the only one in its class, all the other results are three sentence blurbs about how "Daat research corp has released a new product that does......". -Icewedge (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit nothing of the sort. That's absurd. Fundamentally, some construction exists if only to reformulate sentence structure in any article, regardless of how well it is sourced. For most articles that is the case. In fact, some though HAS to occur for any event/person/etc not already covered in an encyclopedia. An article can no more be formed from one major source with direct and detailed coverage than it can be formed from a dozen sources that don't cover the source in exacting detail without independent thought. either method of article creation and sourcing requires some construction by the editor. "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." THAT is the WP:OR policy. Please let me know how my suggestion means that the article editor would have to commit THAT in order to establish notability. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to my argument that there was not enough information avalible online to expand the article you stated that the article could be expanded if a user with real life knowledge came along; real life knowledge is more or less OR. -Icewedge (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is true. Also, for larger purposes, I now agree with you about deleting the article. We get into a slippery slope problem here. At what point do we claim that interpretation is not original research? I don't want to be facile, but we all edit in English, this presumes some fundamental understanding of the language that isn't gained from the source material. Editors who deal with mathematics and physics articles presumably have some experience or talent on the subject that allows them to concatenate information and present it in layman's terms. Even knowledge of wiki syntax is some outside information applied to an article. I think that you should reread the OR policy before claiming that my words represent some appeal to include what wikipedia recognizes as original thought in the encyclopedia. Real life knowledge is not more or less OR in the sense that I was talking about it. Sure, if I said that fundamental information making the company notable was withheld or otherwise unpublished and that an editor can or should use hidden knowledge to make a claim about notability that isn't supported, then that is a violation (of WP:N, not OR, actually). But I didn't say that. I basically said that someone could hypothetically take a large number of indirect mentions of a subject and use their judgment to help establish notability. That is the same judgment you used to reject the article. Had you found something else to support the article's notability you would have used that judgment to stop your search and include it in the article. Creating the sentence explaining why the company is notable is about the same either way. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing with you there. We seem to have a small misunderstanding (which I concede is mostly my fault), my point was that vital information on this company (such as the number of employees) is unavailable on the internet (as far as I was able to determine) so that if someone with real life knowledge were to use that to expand the article that would constitute OR. Using facts that cannot be sources is most certainly OR. -Icewedge (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We are in complete agreement there. The only thing that makes me sad is that you didn't continue to indent furiously!  :) Protonk (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, we have that settled. In regards to indentation: does this comment redeem me? -Icewedge (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLAST! I didn't even think about indenting that much. You win, sir(or possibly ma'am...strange internet androgyny). Protonk (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halley DeVestern

Halley DeVestern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After carefully looking through and parsing all the "notability by association" mentions, I come up a little short. Major claim appears to be touring with Big Brother for a period. Big Brother's official site history doesn't mention her.[29] A Google news search comes up with little beyond some calendar listings, this being the most substantial. Just doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC but I might be wrong. Pigman☿ 06:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've looked pretty hard and I can't find a single reliable source that this person exists let alone is notable - not even a one-liner in the NME. "Up and coming" is two-a-penny and we can't possibly list them all - that's why we have Myspace. — iridescent 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously a notable performer who has toured with Big Brother and the Holding Company, recorded several well-received CDs, been reviewed in notable magazines, and opened for other notable acts. I don't even believe this attempt to kill this article. And Iridescent must not have looked very hard; Google comes up with gigs, interviews, reviews, website, photos, etc. Something else must be going on here or this article would not have been nominated.Oddio (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — Oddio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reply: Great; could you cite a single reliable source? Reliable sources, by Wikipedia standards, are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" including "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." By contrast, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Interviewed in what notable magazines, exactly, and when? The CDs were well-received by what notable industry reviewers, and what are the cites? And so on.  RGTraynor  20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of bands without a profile in AMG, much less a review. The clue is to recognize the difference between words and reality. Regardless, this is certainly within the letter of WP:MUSIC #1 -- there are multiple reviews of the album, she was on the cover of a magazine, and she has a good overview in AMG. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting ridiculous. Yes, AMG doesn't have pages on everyone in the sense that Myspace doesn't have pages on everyone; but AMG has no notability guidelines so the existence of an AMG page is no more an indication of notability than a mention in a blog - and I'm sure you know this perfectly well. As regards all these reliable sources people keep saying exist, why has nobody yet produced a single one? — iridescent 22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine cover is is in the article; the multiple reviews include a couple on the Talk page and the AMG review. And AMG does have notability guidelines, especially since they're paying people to do the research. They're only profiling people that they think will be looked at. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, no. That "article" on AMG is a press release, repeated verbatim on a number of other hits [31] [32]. The release claims that DeVestern has been profiled in Billboard, Good Times and Seventeen, but there is no evidence that this actually happened.  RGTraynor  11:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, there is a scan of a "Good Times" cover featuring her - on her website, but no reason to think it's fake. However, I'm not particularly inclined to take a mention in Good Times (an advert-funded freesheet given out at music shops in NYC) as evidence of notability, as they profile whoever happens to be playing in the city that week, big or small (Barnaby Bye, anyone?). — iridescent 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AMG does not write in-depth articles about all musicians like they did about this one. They're all inclusive with their directory listings (who played what on what album, for example) but not at all about assigning writers to write profiles as they did with this person. --Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are in fact several reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are in fact several reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & Delete The biography on Allmusic.com is not a press release from the artist or her management. It is a biography written by a staff member on Allmusic.com who has written over 100 other biographies on the site according to a google search. Among other things, this staff member has also written the biographies of John Paul Jones and Shirley Manson. Many other websites - including Billboard (eg. Shirley Manson) - use the biographies provided by Allmusic simply because these biographies are generally regarded as authoritative. I also disagree with the characterisation of Allmusic.com as a directory. It does not list every artist who has ever released an album nor does it even provide a biography or review for every artist that is listed on the site. While a bio or review on Allmusic might be a good indication of notability, it is quite true that it is not on its own sufficient to confer notability. Since I was not able to find multiple non-trivial coverage of this artist on google, I have to go with delete as well. --Bardin (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Allmusic article isn't the only source. The Celebrity Cafe interview and the Long Island Voice are both other independent reliable sources that gave in-depth coverage of this person. --Oakshade (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butt Acne

Butt Acne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Everything in this (rather unencyclopedic) article is already covered by Acne. TheMile (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, recreation of a previously deleted content. --Tone 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Hot 100

Philippines Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability and reliable sources in question. I find it odd that a notable nationwide singles chart would be hosted by Freewebs. Google search did not give reliable sources Lenticel (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chi (manga)

Chi (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Personally written and self-published comic (not manga), by Matt Bram. Article was created by the writer (confirmable here where he talks about all the other artilces he will be making) and the comic is only "published" online by him. Absolutely no notability as a book series, comic, or anything else. Wasn't sure if it could be CSD as blatant advertising or some other reason, so AfDing instead. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Of Jakes' Better Business Forms

AfDs for this article:
Battle Of Jakes' Better Business Forms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a non-notable work of fiction; I can find very little information about it. Rnb (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well. That didn't take long.Perhaps you should read the story.The thought that the article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion is merely an opinion.You will not find much about it on the internet, as there isn't much about it outside of the online gun owning community.I apparently think that it is notable as I have created a wikipedia article about it.You should direct us to the criteria for inclusion, so we can all see for ourselves.This looks like a political stunt to me.Have you ever read the works of George Orwell ?Saltforkgunman (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.In fact, I find it odd that you would noninate for deletion a story that you haven't even read.Does the fact that the story has a pro freedom, anti government slant, affect your opinion as to wheather the story should be included in wikipedia?Saltforkgunman (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Wikipedia guidelines on notability for fiction are available at WP:Fiction. I don't think the content of the story has any bearing on notability, to be honest, which is why I haven't read it and don't think I need to. As far as this being a "political stunt," I'm pro-gun ownership and particularly enjoyed Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London, but neither of those things came into play when I nominated the article for deletion; it just looks like a story that only a handful of people are currently interested in, which wouldn't meet the criteria for notability in my mind. I'm curious to see what others say. Rnb (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Yes , there are few people who are interested in the story, as it has never been published in book form.I think that what makes it notable is that it was spontaneously written by a bunch of people on the internet.There are in fact thousands of people in the online gun owner community that know about and have read the story.It strikes me as a pretty good effort , for a bunch of keyboard commandos.:)Saltforkgunman (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unpublished, online-only novel, written by forum members, the title of which only garners 5 Google hits? While perhaps "a pretty good effort, for a bunch of keyboard commandos," not notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whatever isn't already in Windows 7 is unverified and should accordingly not be merged. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Windows 7

Development of Windows 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The main Windows 7 article isn't long enough to warrant a split into a sub article. That apart, there is nothing in this article to let it stand by itself. It contains mostly a list of unreffed build numbers and release dates, which fails verifiability and thus does not belong here. Plus whatever text is here is a duplication of the main Windows 7 article. The release history (what is veifiable) is already covered in Windows 7. soum talk 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that it should stay because it will have to be put up eventually, why not keep it up and save the trouble, they are verified btw, maybe not by wiki but i know all the builds. --Fantasy Game Productions Inc. talk 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ECx2)Comment: Let that "eventuality" come up, the article can be created then. You do not know that it will need to be created, the development might be silent enough to be included in the main article itself. Just because you took the trouble of digging up the builds doesn't make it worthy of inclusion here. They have to be verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources (no forums and blogs do not count such) to be included here. Failing which, they are prime candidates for removal. Please familiarise yourself with the policies here, that will save you a lot of trouble. --soum talk 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, call it WP:SNOW or WP:CSD#A7, a difference which makes no difference. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MR GASPAR

MR GASPAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability; unreferenced. Just another 18-year-old aspiring to notability, but not quite there yet. Biruitorul (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Rocket Designs

Rice Rocket Designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Unreferenced. Probable spam. Also, its creator's only contribution. Biruitorul (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bard

AfDs for this article:
Daniel Bard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

He appears unlikely to make the major league roster anytime soon if he does, failing that part of WP:BIO. While his college career was good, it is not impressive enough to satisfy notability. If anything his notability has decreased in the past two years with a very unimpressive minor league career. Wizardman 01:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he hasn't played professionally. That's the point I was trying to make. Wizardman 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying we should have an article on every minor league player ever, basically. Wizardman 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all first round picks in the MLB Draft are considered high prospects, especially ones that have multiple independent sources such as this one--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources listed on his article are the Red Sox site and his college team website. How does that equate with "multiple independent sources"? The Google news link listed in this afd contains mostly trivial mentions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple google search reveals articles by Baseball America, The Boston Globe and Sons of Sam Horn. Also, the external link to soxprospects.com is an independent web site, not an affiliate of the Red Soxl. See what I mean about multiple non-trivial independent sources?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The main point of confusion as I see it is that this individual has had two distinct careers in baseball. His current professional career has not been notable yet by WP:BASEBALL standards, but his amateur career was distinguished and noteworthy. Numerous national awards are evidence of his play at the "highest level of amateur sports". A valid comparison would be someone who had played in the Olympics but then never played professionally or had a very brief uneventful professional career. Olympians are automatically notable regardless of whatever else they pursue in life. His lackluster professional career would not cancel out his already established amateur notability. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cordell

AfDs for this article:
Red Cordell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extreme local nature of the subject WikiProofer (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to a lack of evidence establishing notability. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Peninsula Travel Association

Olympic Peninsula Travel Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable travel group, reading more like an ad than an article. Jmlk17 03:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the nine references there, none are actually about OPTA. One is about the guy who runs it, and the others just reference it as a way of getting tourist information. They do not establish notability. --JulesN Talk 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The group may have been more active in its earlier days, before the Internet, so reliable sources probably exist in the form of articles that appeared at the time in local and regional newspapers and trade publications. --Eastmain (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Lexis-Nexis search, which I'm pretty is the best online news search has 15 references dating back to 1991, the newest is April 7, 2002. 3 are press releases, and 12 news articles, all of which mention OPTA along the lines of for more information contact.... --JulesN Talk 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the originator of this project and I assure you it is not spam. This is a notable organization that has a 75 year history of promoting the Olympic Peninsula, The University of Washington is even using it's historical brochures as part of their Evergreen Playground online Museum. See Evergreen Playground I also have letters from four prominent Washington State leaders commending the organization for it's service to the state. This association has a rich history and it would be a true loss to Wikipedia if it were deleted. Please let me know what I may be of help to keep this article alive. jwsnyder101 (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added more references and tried to rewrite sections that appeared bias while attempting to maintain the integrity of the reseach. For those of you who wish to torpedo this project, I would like to request that you offer suggestions as to how it could be made worthey of Wikipedia material rather that just simply touting it as spam. jwsnyder101 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as G1 (patent nonsense) by Nihiltres (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 07:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaz-o-matic and cream

Spaz-o-matic and cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I suspect this is a hoax. A Google search for the title in quotes produces no hits. Aleta Sing 02:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Any mergers or redirects can be decided on on the talk page. Sandstein (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedias

List of Wikipedias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an encyclopedic topic. No potential for future expansion. Too self-referential. Enough? Taku (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is surmountable and fixable. We don't delete for fixable problems. It can be split by region or something. That's an issue for the talk page. Regarding your other point, It's not obvious to me. Each wikipedia (for the most part) is notable. They are members of the category for easy grouping, which is good for machines. They are entered into this list for easy reading and the ability to include extra information, which is good for humans. Celarnor Talk to me 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are referring to by "first problem"? The listing all language editions in Wikipedia? That's quite impractical in my opinion. (But that's not an issue here.) For the second, like I said, I agree that Wikipedia is notable and some of language editions (e.g., English, German) are notable too. But that does not make "list of Wikipedias" an encyclopedic topic. I can also see the value of the list, but again "usefulness" doesn't directly translate into "encyclopedic-ness". -- Taku (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists aren't articles in the traditional sense. Like categories, which are useful for machine-based operations, and templates, which help give people relevant articles within the article text, lists are just another method of navigating Wikipedia. It's not 'an article' in the sense that Leonardo da Vinci is an article. You might want to review LISTS, especially the information on stand-alone lists. They're a part of our nav system. Celarnor Talk to me 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not understanding me correctly. I am perfectly aware of LISTS, as I am creators of lots of List X articles. My point is that this particular list doesn't have any encyclopedic value, which is a separate issue from the notability of Wikipedia or if lists are perfectly ok articles in Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy is not a reason for deletion with regards to categories, lists and navigational templates. Please review relevant guidelines. Celarnor Talk to me 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is meta information which we cover elsewhere as noted above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you say its redundant to the nav template? That is also redundant to meta information. If I nominate that for AfD, would you say the same thing? Celarnor Talk to me 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because Template:Wikipedias is a valid and important navigational template which collects all notable wikipedias in one place. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the list is somehow not in line with our guidelines on a set of navigational tools on the wikipedias? If you see a problem with the way CLN is implemented in this list, fix it, or at least bring it to the attention to others so it can be fixed. Celarnor Talk to me 22:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is not redundant with the template, which omits many Wikis for reasons of space and usefulness. If you look at the template's talkpage, you'll see the editorial thinking that decides what is and is not included in the template, which is deliberately not supposed to be an exhaustive list of Wikipedias. Ford MF (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like a useful list to me; it certainly could be expanded (somehow) considering that there are a lot of statistics available between the existing Wikipedias. Gary King (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't that sort of expansion makes the article only more self-referential? -- Taku (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non encyclopedic. JeanLatore (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - list of wikis; covers the same content, could easily have a section for this info. WLU (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim. Merging with List of wikis wouldn't work because as I've been told many times, Wikipedia and wikis are not the same thing, although they are similar. I say trim because there are aspects of this list that could be seen as unmaintainable at best, WP:OR at worst, such as details about traffic, etc. I say delete those and perhaps instead expand a little on some of the more notable Wikipedias, perhaps referencing notable differences (i.e. the German Wikipedia not allowing Fair Use images, for example). I know there's a bit of a weird prejudice around here regarding Wikipedia articles actually about Wikipedia (as in articles in regular articlespace, not in "WP:" space) but this is a viable topic for a list. 23skidoo (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Merging does not work. The article is important enough. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Somehow, I think this is a place people would logically expect to find information on wikipedias. DGG (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, this is so obvious... like DGG said, it is expected to find this here. Mathmo Talk 08:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Given that this list already exists on Meta, doesn't it make sense to have either the Meta redirect here or vice versa? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I see it, the important difference between the two is the links. In the Meta version, the links go to the appropriate wikipedias. Here, the links go to the English-language articles about the wikipedias. That's what makes this a useful list. It wouldn't be appropriate to have a Meta page redirect to the English-language wikipedia or to have the links there go to articles in the English-language wikipedia rather than to the actual wikipedias. Klausness (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article can be used to find different wikipedias. This article can be (somehow) expanded. Also, it doesn't seem to fail any wikipedia guidelines.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to De-loused in the Comatorium. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roulette Dares (The Haunt Of)

Not notable enough to require it's own page, any addtional info can be put in the De-loused in the comatorium article Zopwx2 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is merged, it should cite the downloadable storybook that accompanies the album, which provides indepth explanations about what happens in Cerpin Taxt's "dreamworld." But yes, it does look like original research, and thanks for the agreement. --Thorne N. Melcher 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, let's not beat the subject over the head any more. Autobiography, classic n00b mistake. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vira Saturnio

Vira Saturnio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am submitting this to Afd as a matter of process. This article was originally submitted for Csd under A7 criteria. I find that there are enough sources for this person that I was not comfortable deleting it outright, but not enough good sources that I was willing to completely dismiss the nom for deletion. Instead I will leave it up to consensus to determine. Closing admin note that I am neutral to this article. Trusilver 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete for failing WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Write this down

Write this down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability has not been established Appraiser (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Peel District School Board --JForget 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillside Senior Public School

Hillside Senior Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I started trying to clean this up, but there's nothing to work with here. This is a thoroughly non-notable school. Doc Tropics 01:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wright (ice hockey)

Ben Wright (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior hockey player who has not played professionally so fails to meet WP:N. Has not won any major awards or done anything to otherwise indicate notability. Can easily be recreated when and if he plays professionally. -Djsasso (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Djsasso (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as hoax and per discussion here. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Club Wrestling

Club Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost certainly a hoax, I've found nothing to certify its existence, neither have others. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 00:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Iraq and Vietnam wars

AfDs for this article:
Comparison of Iraq and Vietnam wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It seems to be purely original research. Were it an article of parallels drawn by notable figures, that would be one thing, but this seems to be purely POV.--THobern 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

By original research, I mean that the parallels, while possibly true, were originally synthesised. It seems to simply be a lot of disjointed parallells with little encyclopedic value.--THobern 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
I see... I agree with you there  Moo  Chat  02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge as proposed by Edgarde. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cash for fatwas scandal

Cash for fatwas scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Extremely non-notable and unencyclopedic event. Time published a news piece saying some Indian TV channel in a sting operation showed some Muslim clerics receiving cash for issue of fatwa. They even do not mention the name of the TV channel, which TV channel showed it. No hint in google news search [34]. A google search shows 30 ghits [35], but there are no other reliable source with significant coverage on the particular topic outside the Time piece and a Times of India news piece. Everyday there are news of corruption appears in newspapers, but not all are notable, certainly not for having an exclusive separate article in encyclopedia. The article in its present form is serving a WP:SOAP for anti-Islam POV-pushers. Hence I am nominating this non-notable unencyclopedic news event for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per consensus that WP:NOT a directory of all individual locomotives in existence. Sandstein (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 37, 37427

British Rail Class 37, 37427 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The loco isn't that notable, many others have done lots of other things. BG7 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: doesn't seem notable enough for a general encyclopaedia. What's so special about this particular Class 37? --RFBailey (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's nothing particularly notable about this locomotive. –Signalhead < T > 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. In first grade, I rode on Bus 22, but it does not need an encyclopedia article either. Nor does the garbage truck which picks up my trash each week, or the last airplane I flew on. Something having a number or name in no way establishes notability. Edison (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my world, my bus route 22 holds a certain affection with me, it has nice vehicles and a very interesting route. How dare you besmirch then name of the number 22 bus! Speedy keep on principle!. Seriously, I am wondering whatever happened to the people/admins that had the conjos to close even the most obvious snowballs as snowballs. Maybe wikipedia has become far too beauracratic. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I am also a rail enthusiast and would have supported a 'keep' if there was anything remotely special about this particular '37'. But the article, while adequately presented to WP standards, does not suggest why this loco might be considered notable. Just being given a name is insufficient: there were hundreds of named diesel locos on BR. It is not even the subject of a preservation appeal or the victim of a notable crash. This just appears to be 'a.n.other loco'. Sorry. EdJogg (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to a comment by BG7 earlier, this page has now been 'rescued' to a dedicated page at the Train Spotting World wiki, which should be more than adequate for any fans.EdJogg (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant facts into the Class 37 article (only 37 to wear Scotrail livery etc), then Delete Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete - the copyright holder of the website I quoted seems to be one of the original authors of this article —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not think we can have articles on individual locos unless they have some particular notability, but would see no objection to its appearing in a list with an external link. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mannuzza

Ken Mannuzza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm certain this article is a hoax but cannot check the reference given for the information. Through various versions of this article, this person has claimed to be a 1973 Nobel Prize winner, the 4th person to walk on the moon, a member of the Apollo 12 mission, etc, but Google has never heard of him and neither has the official Nobel Prize website (page located here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/1973.html). Thanks. Rnb (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Searching the NASA website for "Mannuzza" provided no results. Searching for "Ken Mannuzza" Yahoo: gives no results, Google: gives no results, Answers.com: gives a mirror to the article. This article definitely appears to be a hoax. Even if not a hoax the article does not meet the notability requirements Jons63 (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. I can't even find evidence that the subject exists, much less that he is notable. Even if everything in the article (as it has now been edited) is true, that would make the subject just one of thousands of NASA employees. If one doesn't believe Google is a reliable search engine, adding inaccurate information to Wikipedia isn't going to help the situation, since Wikipedia articles tend to show up very high in Google search results. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3 as blatant hoax/misinformation/whatever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Committee

Open Source Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sources have apparently been requested for nearly 3 years (see article talk page). Just seems like some business jargon... a few companies have referred to committees by this name [38], [39], [40] but this is hardly non-trivial coverage of what an Open Source Committee actually is, as far as I can tell. Rividian (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southfall Studios

Southfall Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN recording studio. WP is not a telephone directory, spam. Once speedied and then prodded both removed by article's creator, so brought here--Richhoncho (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_26&oldid=1116879802"